Kites and other archaeological structures along the eastern rim of the Harrat (lava plain) of Jordan, signs of intensive usage in prehistoric time, a Google Earth images study

Abstract

Google Earth offers a unique opportunity and methodologically new approach to study geological and archaeological phenomena over large areas. We have evaluated a high resolution strip of images along the eastern rim of the Jordanian Harrat along 38°E where basaltic Quaternary lava flows override Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary limestones and cherts of the Hamad.
Within this strip we recorded and evaluated statistically 44 ‘kites’ (km-large structures of walls resembling children’s kites from the air) many more than was previously known there. ‘Kites’ consist of km-long guiding walls ending in hectare-sized enclosures erected most probably in Neolithic times to hunt migrating gazelle. They form N-S oriented continuous chains, effectively intercepting animal migration routes. Distances between 32 kites of the easternmost chain were 1.62±0.94 km, covering 48 km N-S. The longest guiding wall found is >10 km long, the total length of all walls being >150 km. Northern, central and southern guiding walls average 2.00±1.35 km (N = 39), 0.78±0.66 (N = 25) and 2.06±1.31 km (N = 38), respectively. The enclosures, situated behind a low sill to hide them from view of approaching gazelle, are star-shaped and 1.80 ± 0.91 ha (from 4.46 to 0.23 ha) in size with circumferences of 624±195 m (1,056 m to 228 m). Enclosures have up to 14 stone circles at their tip, so called ‘blinds’, historically interpreted as ‘hides’ for hunters to shoot gazelle. However, we argue that they must have had a different use, i.e. they were the actual traps. Once the gazelle had jumped into them, they could not jump out again lacking the forward speed. The data suggest a structural stratigraphy of trap construction in the area, that began with meander walls, proceeded with bag-like traps and culminated with the construction of kite chains. Later some kites were decommissioned by extending the guiding walls of adjacent kites. This process was repeated and only 19 kites remained functioning from the original 36. Calculation of energy to construct these traps shows that they must have been highly profitable in terms of caloric return. After the hunting period, kites were partly destroyed by houses and corrals that were built by later herders. Among them are ‘jelly fish/wheel’ houses and other clearings. The most enigmatic structures found are 103 ‘circular paths’, on average 43.3±17.7 m long and 31.7±13.7 m wide, that appear to be very old. All these structures form a rich heritage, unique world-wide, that is not only a challenge for further ground-based archaeological studies but also urgently needing protection against further bulldozing and the spreading of ‘civilization’ into this area.

Full text

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 199
Kites and other Archaeological Structures along the Eastern Rim of the Harrat
(Lava Plain) of Jordan, Signs of Intensive Usage in Prehistoric Time,
a Google Earth Images Study
*
by Stephan Kempe
1
& Ahmad Al-Malabeh
2
1
Institute of Applied Geosciences, University of Technology Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstr. 9, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany,
Kempe@geo.tu-darmstadt.de
2
Hashemite University, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 150459, Zarka 13115, Jordan,
a_malabeh@yahoo.com
Abstract
Google Earth offers a unique opportunity and methodologically new approach to study geological and
archaeological phenomena over large areas. We have evaluated a high resolution strip of images along the
eastern rim of the Jordanian Harrat along 38°E where basaltic Quaternary lava ows override Upper Cretaceous
and Lower Tertiary limestones and cherts of the Hamad.
Within this strip we recorded and evaluated statistically 44 ‘kites’ (km-large structures of walls resembling
children’s kites from the air) many more than was previously known there. ‘Kites’ consist of km-long guiding
walls ending in hectare-sized enclosures erected most probably in Neolithic times to hunt migrating gazelle.
They form N-S oriented continuous chains, effectively intercepting animal migration routes. Distances between
32 kites of the easternmost chain were 1.62±0.94 km, covering 48 km N-S. The longest guiding wall found is
>10 km long, the total length of all walls being >150 km. Northern, central and southern guiding walls average
2.00±1.35 km (N = 39), 0.78±0.66 (N = 25) and 2.06±1.31 km (N = 38), respectively. The enclosures, situated
behind a low sill to hide them from view of approaching gazelle, are star-shaped and 1.80 ± 0.91 ha (from 4.46
to 0.23 ha) in size with circumferences of 624±195 m (1,056 m to 228 m). Enclosures have up to 14 stone circles
at their tip, so called ‘blinds’, historically interpreted as ‘hides’ for hunters to shoot gazelle. However, we argue
that they must have had a different use, i.e. they were the actual traps. Once the gazelle had jumped into them,
they could not jump out again lacking the forward speed. The data suggest a structural stratigraphy of trap
construction in the area, that began with meander walls, proceeded with bag-like traps and culminated with the
construction of kite chains. Later some kites were decommissioned by extending the guiding walls of adjacent
kites. This process was repeated and only 19 kites remained functioning from the original 36. Calculation of
energy to construct these traps shows that they must have been highly protable in terms of caloric return. After
the hunting period, kites were partly destroyed by houses and corrals that were built by later herders. Among
them are ‘jelly sh/wheel’ houses and other clearings. The most enigmatic structures found are 103 ‘circular
paths’, on average 43.3±17.7 m long and 31.7±13.7 m wide, that appear to be very old. All these structures form
a rich heritage, unique world-wide, that is not only a challenge for further ground-based archaeological studies
but also urgently needing protection against further bulldozing and the spreading of ‘civilization’ into this area.
Keywords: Jordanian Harrat, kites, Neolithic, hunting, gazelle
1. Introduction
1.1 Geology and geomorphology
Two very different landscapes determine the
geomorphology of northeastern Jordan: The at
peneplain of the Hamad, consisting of Oligocene to
Paleocene limestones, in the east and the hummocky
Harrat, consisting of Oligocene to Quaternary
volcanites (Tarawneh et al. 2000), in the west. The
border between the Harrat and Hamad roughly runs
N-S along 38°E (Fig. 1). The Harrat features shield
volcanoes (Kempe et al. 2008), tephra cones (e.g., Al
Malabeh 2003, 1994), >100m high strato-volcanoes
(Ashgaf or the Al-Shahba volcanoes) and three
or four up to 100 m long NW–SE striking ssure
eruptions (e.g. Al-Malabeh et al. 2002) (Fig. 1). The
erupted lavas occur both as thick a‘a or as thinly-
sheeted pāhoehoe ows. The latter were transported
through pyroducts (lava tunnels, lava tubes) for many
kilometres, accounting for the wide spread of the lavas
and the low slope of the south-dipping plateau (Al-
Malabeh et al. 2006; Kempe et al. 2006). Post-eruptive
faulting produced local ridges in the SE-Harrat (Fig.
1). Depending on age, wadis have cut canyons (Wadi
Rajil). The plateau was covered with a 1 to 2 m of silty,
carbonate and quartz-containing loess. Through the
poorly understood process of ‘stone heaving’, loose
rocks of the underlying lava moved up to the surface,
covering the loess in a protective manner against
deation and erosion. Erosion washed loess into the
depressions in the hummocky terrain producing playa
ats giving the terrain a “mottled” pattern. Today,
annual precipitation in the area is less than 100 mm
* This paper is a much shortened version of Kempe & Al-Malabeh (2010).

200 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
and owing water is restricted to wet winters. A streak
of a 10 km wide swath of reddish aeolian sediment
almost buried some of the kites between 31°55.4’N
and 31°50’N along our prole (Fig. 1).
1.2 Occupational history
Archaeological surveys began in the 1920s (Field
1960; Betts 1982, 1993, 1998a). Traces of human
presence date back to Paleolithic times (Betts
1988b). During the Last Glacial the area was much
wetter as documented by a high level of Lake Lisan,
the predecessor of the Dead Sea (e.g., Landmann et
al. 2002; Abu Ghazleh & Kempe 2009) when also
local lakes existed in the Harrat (Rollefson 1982;
Rollefson et al. 1997). After a sharp post glacial
regression, lake levels rose again (Neev & Emery
1995) from 14–10.5 ka ago and beginning at 8.5 ka
BP, probably also improving conditions on the Harrat.
Excavation conducted at Dhuweila in the central
Fig. 1. Google Earth overview of the Harrat in eastern Jordan with some of the pertinent geological, volcanological and
geographical features (Volcanoes marked in red; towns of Safawi and Azraq and the Bronze Age city of Jawa marked in
blue. Bold, yellow lines: international borders; thin yellow lines: roads; light blue line: Trans-Arabian Pipeline; black
lines: faults, colored bold lines: eruptive ssures; bold brown line: Al-Fahda ow eld; thin brown line: eastern border
of the Harrat. The kites studied here are marked by numbered yellow pins while the white pins with letters mark the next
kite chain to the west in an area not available in high resolution. Kite positions in Saudi Arabia are marked with green
pins labeled SA).
Harrat documented occupation at around 8.25 – 8.19
ka BP, 7.45 – 7.03 ka BP and 5.51 – 4.44 ka BP (Betts
1998b) (stage 1 and 2 belonging to the pre-pottery
Neolithic-B, or PPNB). Jawa, an Early Bronze Age
‘city’ with massive basaltic defense walls, is the most
impressive archeological site in the Harrat (Helms
1981; Betts 1991).
During Roman times, roads, towns and border forts
were built along the Limes Arabica (e.g., Kennedy &
Riley 1990) such as the fort at Azraq, the large towns
of Umm Al-Jimal, Sama Al-Sirham and Umm Al-
Qutain (e.g., de Vries 2000; Kennedy 1993), and the
castle of Qasr Burqu’ E of the Harrat (Gaube 1974),
all built from basalt. Between the 1
st
century BC and
the 4
th
century AD early Arabic tribes left Safaitic
inscriptions and petroglyphs of camels, horses, lions,
ostriches, gazelles and of various hunting (Fig. 2)
and riding scenes (e.g., Ababneh, 2005), sometimes
overwritten by modern inscriptions or even images of
trucks.

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 201
1.3 ‘Desert kites’
First noticed by pilots in 1925 (Maitland 1927;
Poidebard 1928) the ‘desert kites’ are the most
enigmatic archaeological structures of the Harrat
(e.g., Helms & Betts 1987). Kites are also known
from Syria (e.g., Echallier & Braemer 1995), Saudi
Arabia (Kennedy 2009), the Negev (e.g., Holzer et al.
2010), and from the Aralo-Caspian region (e.g., Betts
& Yagodin 2000. But Jordan apparently has most kites
and Betts (1998c, g. 10.10) gives a map with about
300 of them. Most Jordanian kites consist of pairs of
straight or curved ‘guiding walls’ that narrow down at
a sill. Behind follows an irregular polygonal, star-like
shape, giving the whole structure the appearance of
a child’s kite. At corners, small circular stone walls
are placed, so called ‘blinds’, interpreted by e.g.
Betts (1982, 31) as “series of hides to conceal the
hunters.” Further she says: “Kites form long chains
joined at their extremities of their trailing walls, the
Fig 2. Petroglyph with Safaitic inscription. A hunter
armed with lance and shield attacks an animal that is most
probably a hyena (round head, stripped fur). Two complete
horses with elaborate tails stand to the right. A third horse
is incompletely drawn. In the background a herd of goats
and to the right a camel (?) is seen. The hunters name
probably reads “rbt son of bgt”. The other parts of the
inscription still need translation. The inscription dates this
hunt to about 2000 BP.
chains stretch for many kilometers across what must
have been the seasonal migration routes of the desert
fauna.” Echallier & Braemer (1995) suggested that
kites were used for animal herding, but most agree
that the kites were used to hunt gazelle.
The PPNB camp-site Dhuweila (7
th
millennium BC)
was association with kites (Betts 1998b) and over
90 % of the recovered stage 1 and 2 Dhuweila bones
– >11,000 pieces – belong to the genus Gazella;
domestic animals are entirely missing (Martin 1998).
Furthermore >80 rock carvings recovered show
horned animals, probably gazelle (Betts 1998d).
At Jawa, cattle and sheep/goat bones already dominate
over gazelle, suggesting that their hunt was continued,
albeit not the main protein source in Middle Bronze
Age times (Helms 1981). Furthermore, the water
system of Jawa succeeded kite walls, also suggesting
their Neolithic age (Helms & Betts 1987, 45). Some
rock carvings may show kites, some without animals,

202 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
others with animals possibly representing gazelle and
hunting dogs (Betts 1998d, gs. 7.12, 7.14). Among
them is the ‘Cairn of Hani’ (Harding 1953; Field 1960,
g. 32a) showing on one side a hunting scene with
animals between guiding walls driven by a human and
assembled in a kite enclosure characterized by circular
‘blinds’. On the other side of the boulder an archer
shoots at horned animals and a human with a whip
directs hunting dogs. The rock carries also a Safaitic
inscription; if it was not added later, it would date the
cairn to between the 2
nd
century BC and the 4
th
century
AD. Observations in the 19
th
century from Syria by
Musil (1927 and 1928, cited by Betts 1998d, 156),
demonstrate the long-term usage of kites for hunting.
However, Musil reports that the gazelle were forced
to jump walls with pits or ditches behind, where they
would break their legs. Pits and ditches, however, have
not been reported from any of the hunting kites on the
Harrat (Betts 1998c). Comparison of the Harrat kites
with those of the Aralo-Caspian region (dating from
the 1
st
millennium AD) substantiates the conclusions
that kites were used to intercept migrating animals
occurring in large numbers, such as gazelle. No rm
evidence exists that the kites were used to hunt other
animals such as onager, oryx or ostriches. The most
likely animal hunted is Gazella subgutturosa marica
(Goitered Gazelle), a migrating species now extinct
in Jordan, and Betts (1993, 10) summarizes: “The
steppe was not extensively, re-used until the late Pre-
Pottery Neolithic-B in the second half of the seventh
millennium BC. In this period, there was emphasis
on exploitation of particular resources, at this time
gazelle. Gazelle was hunted in large number in the
harra (Helms and Betts 1987; Betts 1988a, 1989).
Hunting camps were located within reach of gudran
(i.e. rain pools), but choice of site location was also
inuenced by the proximity of hunting ground and
landscape suitable for the construction of ‘kites’….
With the introduction of sheep/goat herding in the
early sixth millennium B.V., open country became
more useful….”
2. Materials and methods
Here we give details of a specic set of kites, their
geological context and evaluate their interrelationships,
and survey the area for other anthropogenic features.
We took advantage of a high resolution (about 0.5 m
pixel
-1
) strip of Google Earth images east of 37°59’
(datum WGS 84) that contains a set of >40 kites
following the eastern border of the basalts (Fig. 3).
Distances were obtained with the Google Earth ruler
and areas with the Photoshop CS4 extended program.
All walls were redrawn as Google Earth vectors:
guiding walls in white (Fig. 3), others in yellow. Walls
Fig. 3. Google Earth close-up of the eastern boundary of the Harrat (thin brown line) (north is left).
Numbered yellow pins mark kites discussed here, their guiding walls are delineated in white. Meander
walls are delineated in yellow. White pins mark kites to the west, green pins those in Saudi Arabia. Black
lines denote faults, and colored fat lines trace eruptive ssures, Highway 40 in yellow, Trans-Arabian
Pipeline in light blue.

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 203
These kites form two parallel chains, the eastern one
including kites 8 to 43 (distance 47 km) and western
one from 1 to 7 and from A to 44 (including a shorter
intermediate chain from BA to BC) (distance 78 km).
17 more kites were found in Saudi Arabia, marked by
green pins extending these chains.
Averaged distances between kites amount to:
• Kites 1 to 7 (n = 6; excluding Kite 6 because it
may not be a kite at all) 5.54±2.40 km;
• Kites 8 to 43 (n = 32; excluding several kites
of older generation, i.e., no. 10a, 26, 37 and 43)
1.62±0.94 km;
• Kites A to 44 (n = 38; excluding kites D and AHa
because they appear to be older kites) 1.64±0.73
km (max 3.34, min 0.31 km).
The distance of 1.6 km reminds of the distance
covered by 1000 double paces, i.e. that of the Roman
mile (1.479 km) or the statue mile (1.609 km). Thus
the original positions may have been spaced out
by 1000 double paces and then the exact positions
were adjusted to the possibilities the terrain offered.
This close spacing was given up after some time
and many of the kites were ‘decommissioned’ by
extending the guiding walls of neighboring kites. This
allows constructing a structural stratigraphy (Table
1). Column 1 lists all kites N to S, columns 2 and
3 gives the kites that supersede the original kite by
appear on Google Earth as dark traces because they
are erected from basalt blocks. In collecting them, the
underlying loess is exposed and the dark wall is often
paralleled by light lines on one or both sides of it.
Where walls run across playas they are better visibly
while they become obscure when running across dark
rock outcrops. No kites occur in the Hamad (Betts
1993). Paths appear as light lines, four wheel tracks
appear as double light lines and bulldozed trails are not
only wider but also marked by rock piles on both sides
or with on-echelon edges. National Road 40 (Amman
– Bagdad) crosses the area in the N and the old Trans-
Arabian Pipe Line in the S (Fig. 1). In February 2009
we inspected a few of the structures in the eld (Kite
3 and a few wheelhouses, Fig. 4).
3. The kites
3.1 General situation and structural
stratigraphy
East of 37°59’ (Fig. 1) in the high resolution area within
Jordan we identied 43 kites (Figs. 1 and 2, yellow
pins), signicantly more than the 17 kites recorded
by Helms & Betts (1987, g. 17), more than see on
the published topographic maps (Royal Jordanian
Geogr. Center 1997) and contradicting the assumption
(Betts & Yagodin 2000) that most kites occur in the
western and central Harrat. In the lower resolution
area 46 further kites occur to the west (white pins).

204 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
the extension of their guiding walls. In the northern
chain all kites remained active. In the more closely
spaced southern chain the number of active kites was
diminished at least twice. Of the original 36 kites only
19 nally remained functioning. In case of Kite 10
and 10a (one of the least altered original kites), less
than 200 m apart, 10a was completely cut off by the
southern guiding wall of Kite 10 (Fig. 5). Kite 10a
is one of the most original kites because it seems to
have been abandoned even before obtaining its nal
guiding walls.
Table 1: Stratigraphy of kites.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
1
2
3
4
5 5
6 5
7
8
9
10 10
10a 10
11
12
13 14
14 14
15 14
16 16 19
17 16 19
18 19
19 19 19
20 21 19
21 21 19
22
23 23
24 23
25
26
27
28 28
29 28
30 31
31 31
32
33 33
34 33
35 35
36 35
37 35
38 39 39
39 39 39
40 40 39
41 40 39
42 42 42
43 42 42
Fig. 4. Southeast-ward view of the enclosure wall of Kite #3 in the eld. Note the N-guiding wall at the horizon
as it approaches the gate to the enclosure (off the picture to the right). Note also the dilapidated nature of the
walls and the loess strip along it from which the stones were collected to build the wall.

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 205
Fig. 5. Google Earth picture of kites 10 and 10a. Note that the southern guiding wall of kite 10 closes off kite 10a and
that no traces are visible suggesting that kite 10a walls were formerly longer.
Fig. 6. Google Earth picture of meander walls (in yellow) between kites 37 to 43. In the south the meander walls
follow the wadi, crossing it several times. In the north the walls cross the lava plain. Several later-erected walls cut off
meanders (in orange) (north is left).

206 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
3.2 ‘Meander’ walls
In addition to kites and their guiding walls a second
class of walls is present that meander back and
forth (Fig. 3 in yellow), thereby closing off dells
between lava hills. They seem to funnel migrating
animals into certain paths or leading then into bag-
like constrictions. A km-long wall runs parallel to
the Harrat border between 32°24.475’N/38°3.522’E
and 32°23.383’N/38°2.530’E. A second section
extends between 32°20.829’N/38°0.565’E and
32°20.357’N/38°0.759’E that forms one large
W-oriented pouch erected along the crest of a lava
rise that ends in four small ‘ngers’. Our observations
suggest that the meander walls predate the construction
of the kites.
Fig. 6 shows the longest meander wall systems
(>7 km end-to-end; 31°49.5’N/38°2.1’E and
31°46.3’N/38°0.4’E; between Kites 38 and 43). It
runs back and forth between an escarpment (a ssure
eruption) in the north and Wadi Al-Sheikh (or Wadi
Ibn Waqqad) in the south. This system of walls bared
a primary migration route through the Harrat between
the Hamad in the east and the Azraq Basin. It exploits
even small surface features, curving W where the area
is attest along a series of small playas in the center
of the depression. The walls obviously served to keep
the gazelle in the wadi and to hunt them at convenient
constrictions and at the ends of W-oriented pouches.
Fig. 6 also shows that some kite guiding walls cut
across the meander walls or incorporate them into
their scheme, thus proving that the kites belong to a
younger and radically different hunting technique.
3.3 Guiding walls of kites
In contrast to meander walls, guiding walls run more
or less straight across playas or lava knolls, changing
direction at distinct angles if necessary. The longest
kite guiding wall is that of Kite 44 with a length of
10.57 km, longer than any previously reported wall.
It runs W from 31°48.291’N/38°0.416’E (in the
high resolution area) and ends at 44 at 31°47.823’N
37°53.831’E (in the low resolution area). Each kite
normally has a northern, central and southern wall.
We measured all the walls in the high resolution strips
and, choosing the longest of each (many guiding
walls show minor or major alterations), calculated
average lengths of all of the guiding walls. Kites 6,
10a, 26, 37 and 43 were excluded (10a was replaced
by nearby Kite 10; Kite 26 is not in line with the main
chain; Kites 37 and 43 are smaller, bag-like structures
presumably of an older generation because the S
wall of Kite 35 was extended to cross # 37; Kite 44
was also excluded because it belongs to the second
chain to the west, but Kites 1 and 7 were included,
even though their enclosures do not appear in high
resolution). The northern walls have an average length
of 2.00±1.35 km (n = 39), the central walls have an
average length of 0.78±0.66 km (n = 25) and the
southern guiding walls a length of 2.06±1.31 km (n =
38). The gape width of the kites (distance between the
outer tip of the northern and southern guiding walls)
was 2.17±1.15 km (n = 38). Again excluding the kites
listed above and any parallel walls the total length of
northern, central and southern guiding walls sums up
to 73.94, 17.27 and 77.39 km, respectively and an
overall length of guiding walls of ca. 150 km for the
easternmost kites of the Harrat.
Playas may offer an opportunity to date these walls
by
14
C of OSL because some of the kite walls seem
to sink below the playa surface, reappearing on the
other side. This indicates that they have been buried in
sediment since their time of erection.
3.4 Kite enclosures
The shape of the kite enclosures appears to be
either design-dominated, having strict symmetric
and geometric pattern, or terrain-dominated, taking
advantage of the in situ morphology. Kites 2 and 10a
are design-dominated, forming a hexagon with four
‘blinds’ on the far corners and a 5-tip star, respectively
(Fig. 7), but most of the studied kites are terrain-
dominated. This is because they open toward the E
and it was necessary to nd W-inclined places behind
a sill so that advancing animals cannot see (or smell)
what lies beyond. Available places are further reduced
by the need to build a continuous chain of kites. The
W-facing slopes become steeper S-wards because there
faults with W-facing escarpments occur (Fig. 1). Fig.
6 gives some kite shapes in detail. A common feature
is that all have inward concave enclosure walls. The
only exception is Kite 2 (Fig. 7), that also does not
show any signs of later alteration and is also missing a
central wall. Could this have been an early “test-kite“,
that proved not as effective as the other designs and
was abandoned early on? The same arguments apply
to Kite 10a that has never been altered.
The average size of the kite enclosure including all
buildings stages (i.e., n = 69) is 1.75 ±0.85 ha (coef.
of var. 48.8%). The largest kite was # 31 with 4.27 ha
and the smallest # 42 with 0.23 ha. The circumference
(mean 615 ± 188 m coef. of var. 31.6%) is largest
for Kite 31 (1,056 m) and smallest for Kite 42 (228
m). This large number of cases, compared to the
number of kites included here (n = 40; excl. # 1,6,7),
is caused because many of the kites have different
building stages that were evaluated individually (for
complete statistics see Kempe & Al-Malabeh 2010).
The entrance width varies between 10 m (# 26) and 76
m (# 37). None of the entrances show signs of having
been closed in later stages or that the rocks have been

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 207
Fig. 7. Selection of Google Earth images of the kites discussed here (note common 120 m scale bar at lower left. Kite
2 and 10a are examples of design-dominated ground plans. Kite 3 illustrates that wheel houses may be structures of a
younger period. Kite 14 has the most blinds and is of a very regular shape. Kite 21 is situated behind a steep sill and
elongated to make use the available space. Kite 26 is of an older circular design, placed directly at the border of the
Harrat. Kite 36 is an even older pouch-like design, build before ‘blinds’ were used. Kite 42 is the one furthest south that
has been enlarges, taking advantage of the morphology. It is also one with very long guiding walls and being in service
even in the third phase of prolongation of guiding walls.

208 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
Fig. 8. Examples of Google Earth views of wheel houses from the investigation area (all of the same scale).

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 209
removed to form temporary closures. This observation
excludes the possibility that the enclosures could have
been used to keep domesticated herds (as suggested
by Echallier & Braemer 1995).
Kites 37 and 43 do not have any blinds and may
represent an early stage of kites, succeeding the
meander walls (similar to ‘Type C’ of Helms & Betts
1987, g. 14). The star-like type (‘type D’ of Helms &
Betts 1987, g. 14) has ‘blinds’ at their ends and the
largest number found was 14 for Kite 14. These blinds
are always stone circles, 2 to 5 m across. If they are
elongated, the long axis, up to 12 m long, is parallel to
the enclosure wall.
Many of the kites show later alteration, enlarging them,
diminishing them or adding or subtracting ‘blinds’.
But also location and gate width was changed. Later
alterations include erection of structures inside the
enclosure with or without incorporation of the kite
walls. A detailed analysis of all observed alterations is
given by Kempe & Al-Malabeh (2010).
4. Other anthropogenic features
4.1 Places for living
The studied area shows, apart from the km-long
hunting structures, an astounding number of traces
of human usage present in many different categories
(used possibly for dwelling, water management,
agriculture, herding, storing, manufacturing, way
marking, religious ceremonies or burying). However,
which pattern served for what remains often open to
debate.
The terms ‘jelly sh house’ (Helms 1981, pl. 9) or
‘wheel house’ (WH) describes a circular structure with
radial spokes (Fig. 8). 32 WHs are seen in the high
resolution area. Their area can change by a factor of 20.
On average, WHs measure 51.1(±18.0) x 42.8(±15.0)
m in diameter (excluding other detached outside
structures) with an average area of 1,730 m
2
. Field
inspection of some of the well preserved WHs showed
that their walls could not have been much higher than
a metre (Fig. 9; # 8, 32°24.804’N/38°0.015’E). Some
Fig. 9. Panoramic view of wheel house 1 on the ground looking south (32°29.763’N / 37°59.450’ E; 67 x 54 m,
12 spokes.) Image: Kempe.
of the WHs have satellite rings, in size similar to kite
blinds. Often they are positioned on small lava rises.
They seem to be concentrated between Kites 1 to 4
and 5 to 8. One WH is built inside a kite enclosure and
another inside the runway of the animals, suggesting
that they are younger than the kites.
Other structures, more common than WHs, can be
described as ‘agglomerated houses’ (AH), quasi-
circular structures formed by an agglomerate of
‘rooms’ attached to each other. Some of these houses
form elongated clusters; others are more centrally
organized complexes. AH seem also to be younger
than kites since some of them destroy kite features.
At an even higher number of places rocks have been
moved to form clearings. Most of them lack peripheral
walls, some contain stacks of rocks. Modern clearings
are larger and rectangular to accommodate current
Bedouin tents and their cars and trucks.
4.2 Circular paths
The most enigmatic nding of our Google Earth
studies is 103 ‘circular paths’ (Fig. 10). They also occur
further W and S of the Saudi border. Some are almost
circular, others elongated, one is a dumbbell and in
one example there are two circles within each other
(Fig. 11). On average these paths measure 43.3±17.7
m times 31.7±13.7 m. The longest measures 117 m and
the largest measures 106 x 90 m. The paths have been
cleared of stones and the loess below lets them appear
in a lighter color than the surroundings. These paths
are much more pronounced than the usual webbing of
paths crisscrossing the landscape. Also, they appear to
be very regular in their width, about 1 to 1.5 m wide.
They encircle in almost all cases an unaltered piece
of the Harrat surface. Rarely is any structure found
inside them. Some circles are within stone shot of a
settlement, others are several hundred metres off.
Twice we found kite guiding walls running across
them (Kite 36 at 31°49.76’N/38°1.62’E and Kite 42
at 31°46.167’N/38°1.835’E), suggesting that they are
older than the kites. In a few other cases, circular paths
are overlain by later houses.

210 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
Why are there so many of these and what have they
been made for? Many reasons come to mind; none is
conclusive: training tracks for hunters or their dogs,
circles to thrash wild grain harvests or religious
processional courses. We may never know, but they
denitely are wide-spread phenomena that add
curiosity to the Harrat and its prehistoric times.
4.3 Other structures
Seven ‘pearl-string enclosures’ were found. They are
walls formed by strings of small stone circles. The
longest wall is a large rectangle, enclosing an entire
playa having a perimeter of 1,700 m. Others are much
smaller and circular, one is u-shaped. They could have
had agricultural purposes.
‘U-shaped’ structures are small, with a 3 to 6 m long
base and two 2 to 5 long arms. They occur in a few
places along playas and may also have had agricultural
purposes.
More than 20 examples of a quite characteristic
feature, consisting of a large rock pile accompanied
by one string (or two) of smaller mounds were noticed
(Fig. 11a). They seem to be graves, associated to an
older tomb of an important forefather.
The area contains also many modern structures, like
Fig. 10. Positions of circular paths along the eastern border of the Harrat in the Google Earth high resolution strip
(north is left). For explanation of geological features see Fig. 1.
corrals to keep sheep over night. Other features include
forts, reservoirs, airplane orientation marks, airports
(next to Jabal Aritain for example) and a multitude of
bulldozed tracks.
5. Conclusions
The ‘desert kites’ of the Jordanian Harrat are a
singular phenomenon both concerning their number
and their developmental complexity. They illustrate
the intensive use of a rough area, now seen as a
forbidden rock desert. Archaeological investigations
(Ch.1.3) suggest that they date to Prepottery Neolithic
times (e.g., Betts, 1998c) and that they served for
rounding up and killing gazelle in large numbers.
Safaitic inscriptions could suggest that some were still
used in early historic times (Harding 1953) and even
later. Fundamental questions arise that concern the
early building stages and the structural stratigraphy,
the exact functioning of the kites and the social
background of their creators.
5.1 Structural stratigraphy
Our investigations and earlier analyses (Helms &
Betts, 1987) indicate that the technique to hunt gazelle
evolved in several steps. The observations in our study
area (particularly in its south) suggest the following
stages:

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 211
Fig. 11. Selection of several circular paths visible on Google Earth. Note the varying scales; (b) is an enlargement of (a).
In (h) the southern guiding wall of kite 36 crosses the circular path.

212 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
1 First was a system of meandering walls as obstacles
at places of E–W gazelle migration. Multiple
W-directed indentations (‘pouches’) possibly
served as places where gazelle would collect and
could be hunted easily. Other walls follow the
anks of a wadi, in order to keep gazelle in the
wadi and focus them to certain hunting stations.
2 Next, bag-like walls, still without blinds (Kites
37 and 43), were erected at at places that do not
have sills.
3 Then circular enclosures were built next to the
Harrat border with a few blinds such as Kite 26
(Fig. 6b). Their guiding walls were relatively
short, but placed beyond a sill.
4 In the main period consecutive chains of kites
were planned (by a master planner?) and erected,
effectively controlling the entire eastern rim of
the Harrat. The guiding walls were now straight,
extending for kilometres across the terrain
irrespectively of its character. Meandering walls
were integrated, if appropriate.
5 The last stage of usage was the prolongation of
guiding walls, decommissioning some of the
neighboring kites of step (4). The walls are now
touching each other and the animals following
them must have arrived at one or the other kites
with no chance to bypass the wall system. In the
kites themselves alterations were made, adding
blinds or cutting them off. In a few cases, the kite
entrances were shifted.
6 With the advent of herding culture the kites were
not necessary or not all necessary any more and
WHs, AHs and corrals were built within the kite
areas, a few of them destroying even sections of
the kite walls.
The two chains of kites discussed here are not the only
ones in the Harrat. Further west, several more chains
exist. Chain after chain of kites was constructed. But
what would be left to hunt if already the rst chain
was a continuous concatenation of walls?
5.2 Mode of operation
In the literature, several hypotheses are given as to
how the kites were used. The most common is that
the ’blinds’ were ‘hides’ for the hunters. However, the
description of ‘ditch-hunting’ of gazelle in historic
times in Syria (compare Simpson, 1994) gives, to our
opinion an interesting clue. This method involved
driving gazelle along guiding walls into constrictions
towards breaches with ditches across them. In their
panic the animals would jump into the ditches, hurting
themselves so that they could be killed in large
numbers. None of the kites discussed here or those
described by Helms & Betts (1987) and Betts (1998c)
further W, seem to have had ditches. In the described
kites, the enclosures are quite large, many hundreds,
if not thousands of animals could have been trapped
within. They would, in fact have made a good aim for
hunters. However, the ‘hides’ were invariably placed
at the tip of the ray-like extensions, i.e. the hunters
would be stationed the furthest away from their prey.
Furthermore, they would be sitting inside of stone
circles and would need to scramble in and out of there
if they wanted to swap stations. Therefore we suggest
a different mode of operation: The ‘blinds’ in fact
served as ditches, i.e. the animals that would collect
in the enclosures because they followed the guiding
walls would be frightened, so that they would dash
towards the furthest points of the enclosures and jump
the wall there. Instead of gaining free terrain, they
would nd themselves in the tight space of a ‘blind’.
Gazella (even though also called ‘jumping gazelle’;
Walther, 1990) do not like to jump across obstacles
and presumably they cannot jump up and forward if
not having a certain runway. Therefore they may have
found themselves in “a tight spot” and as more and
more gazelle followed, many of them were disabled
and could later be easily taken out of the ‘blinds’. The
inward curved walls of the enclosures would allow the
hunters to get close to the center of the enclosure and
shoot at animals at close range, thereby setting them
off in panic towards the ray-tips. This concept would,
to our opinion, explain much better how the kites were
operated than previous interpretations. In this way a
few hunters could ‘harvest’ many gazelle without
running high personal risk. All animals jumping the
walls aside of the ‘blinds’ would escape and could be
intercepted by the next chain of kites a few km further
west.
5.3 Social structures
The building of hundreds of kilometres of walls in
the Harrat, all of the same concept that result in an
almost 100 % closure against animal movement must
have involved an overall planning. The builders must
not only have been internally organized and must
have had enough man-power but they must also have
had a long-term control over the area to embark on
such an endeavor. We wondered if building these kite
structures would actually have a high enough caloric
return to justify this expenditure of man-power. We
therefore calculated the calories need to build kites
(calculation courtesy W. Dreybrodt, Bremen):
The weight (W) of a 1 m high (1 m = h
w
), 1 m long
and 0.5 m wide (A = 0.5 m
2
) wall built from basalt
(ρ·= 3000 kg m
-3
) with an airspace fraction of 0.3 (F)
is equal to
W = A*h
w
* ρ*(1 – F) = 1050 kg.

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 213
The energy (E) (with G = 9.81 ms
-2
) needed to lift this
mass (i.e. each stone has to be lifted to about 1 m (h)
before it can be carried to the wall and deposited there
is:
E = W*h*G = 10,300 J, or (1J = 0.239 cal)
E = 10,300 * 0.239 10
-3
= 2.46 kcal
If the stones are 10 kg each, then for 1 m of wall, 1050
kg 10 kg
-1
= 105 stones are needed. For each stone one
has to bend over and lift the body (50 kg) back up;
thus additionally
E = 105*50kg*1m*9.81ms
-2
= 51,500 J = 12.3 kcal
are needed. In total about 15 kcal at least are needed
per metre of wall. The efciency of muscular work is
about 0.25 and thus
1/0.25*15 kcal = 60 kcal
are needed per metre of wall, or 60,000 kcal per
kilometre. Meat has a caloric value of 1,280 kcal kg
-1
.
Thus, 1 km of wall is equivalent to 46.9 kg of meat,
i.e. in the range of the usable weight of three gazelle
(if, for example, a Dorca gazelle is taken as standard
that has a weight of around 20 kg). Assuming that per
day about 500 kcal can be invested into work (half of
that assumed for very heavy work) then 1 km of wall
can be erected in 120 man days. Taking the average
length of the enclosure perimeter (0.62 km), northern
(2.00 km) and southern (2.06 km) guide walls together
(= 4.68 km) then a kite can be erected in about 562
man days; or, if ten people cooperate, within 56 days
or one hunting season. The investment would then be
equal to about 220 kg of meat or about 15 gazelle, i.e.
it would be highly protable even at short-term.
Thus, the kites may have been built within a few years
and, if hundreds of gazelle were hunted per year, they
would have returned the caloric investment within a
very few years.
The extension of some kite guiding walls across the
openings of neighboring kites (phase (5) above) may
have been triggered by the depletion of gazelle so that
fewer kites were necessary or by the decrease of the
number of people still living from hunting (or both).
It could also be hypothesized that the nal kite chain
stage was used to exclude gazelle entirely from the
area so that domesticated animals had the full use of
the vegetation.
Many more questions need to be asked; for example
where did the people building and using the kites have
their camping sites, how did they preserve the meat
and how did they transport the meat to markets (if
that was one of the aims of the operation)? Who was
organizing the building of the kites and who designed
the master plan?
5.4 Sustainability
The high density of the kites also raises the question of
sustainability. How long could the kites have been used
with prot without depleting the gazelle to a point that
the return would not sustain the hunting community
anymore? The effective barring of animal migration
by multiple kite chains and gap-less guiding walls
could diminish the migrating herds within a few years
almost to the point of extinction. But even after a near-
extinction, the number of gazelle may have recovered
if large-scale hunting would cease. This would explain
the use of the kites in later times as described above.
We were shown a head of a Dorcas gazelle (Gazella
dorcas, Linnaeus, 1758) in Ruweished shot recently in
the area. The introduction of re arms, non-sustainable
pleasure hunting and overgrazing have nally led to
the extinction of gazelle in Jordan.
5.5 Heritage issues
Our study of the Google Earth images also shows how
the area and its archaeological heritage are impacted
by modern man. The area is crossed by the Trans
Arabian Pipeline (TAP) (Fig. 1) and the Iraqi Pipeline
(passing from Karouk in Iraq through Ruweished and
Safawi to Haifa). To construct the pipelines, tracks
and fort-like buildings had to be built. Wide, straight,
characteristic double-tracks were bulldozed through
the area, regardless of archaeological structures for oil
exploration seismics (King, 1990). Other single-lane
bulldozed tracks crisscross the area, intended to make
the area accessible to the trucks of the modern sheep
herders and reservoir basins have been bulldozed into
the playas. More tracks are made by pickups. But most
scaring is the random bulldozing that is seen along the
national road 40 that crosses the area from Safawi to
the Iraqi border and it seems only a matter of time
before a substantial part of the archaeological heritage
is lost irrevocably.
6. Acknowledgments
We are indebted to the President of the Hashemite
University and the Director of the Badia Research
Center for providing pickups and eld quarters.
Uwaiyed Al-Nuaemi and Ziad Al-Smadi served as
drivers. Thanks go to Dr. Horst-Volker Henschel,
Darmstadt, and geologist Ali Khalifa, Zarka, for
eld assistance and to Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dreybrodt,
Bremen, for help with calculating caloric values. The
questions of two unnamed reviewers helped to improve
the paper. Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz and Aurora Szekielda,
New York; reviewed the paper for language.

214 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010
References
Ababneh, M.I. 2005 Neue safaitische Inschriften und
deren bildliche Darstellungen. Semitica et
Semitohamitica Beroliniensia 6: 447pp.
Abu Ghazleh, S. & Kempe, S. 2009 Geomorphology
of Lake Lisan terraces along the eastern coast
of the Dead Sea, Jordan. Geomorphology,
108: 246–263.
Al-Malabeh, A. 1994 Geochemistry of two volcanic
cones from the intra-continental plateau
basalt of Harra El-Jabban, NE-Jordan. [In]
Basaltic Rocks of Various Tectonic Setting.
Geochemical Journal, 28: 542–558.
Al-Malabeh, A. 2003 Geochemistry and volcanology
of Jabal Al-Ruyat, strombolian monogenic
volcano, Jordan. Dirasat, Jordan University,
30: 125–140.
Al-Malabeh, A., El-Hasan, T., Lataifeh, M. & O’Shea,
M. 2002 Geochemical- and mineralogical-
related magnetic characteristics of the
Tertiary-Quaternary (Umm Al-Qutein)
basaltic ows from the basaltic eld of
Harra El-Jabban, northeast Jordan. Physica
B-Physics of Condensed Matter, Netherlands,
321 (1–4): 396–403.
Al-Malabeh, A., Frehat, M., Henschel, H.-V. & Kempe,
S. 2006 Al-Fahda Cave (Jordan): the longest
lava cave yet reported from the Arabian Plate.
Proceedings 12th International Symposium
on Vulcanospeleology, Tepotzlán, Mexico,
2–7 July, 2006, Association for Mexican Cave
Studies, Bulletin, 19 and Socieded Mexicana
de Exploraciones Subterráneas Bolletin, 7:
201–208.
Betts, A.V.G. 1982 Prehistoric sites at Qa’a Mejalla,
eastern Jordan. Levant, 14: 1–34.
Betts, A.V.G. 1988a 1986 Excavations at Dhuweila,
eastern Jordan. Levant, 20: 7–21.
Betts, A.V.G. 1988b The Black Desert Survey.
Prehistoric sites and subsistence strategies
in Eastern Jordan. [In]Garrard, A. & Gebel,
H.G. (Eds.) The Prehistory of Jordan, the
State of Research in 1986, Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser.: 369–391.
Betts, A.V.G. 1989 The pre-pottery Neolithic-B period
in Eastern Jordan. Paleoorient, 15/1: 147–53.
Betts, A.V.G. (Ed.) 1991 Excavations at Jawa 1972–
1986: Stratigraphy, pottery and other nds.
Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh,
397pp.
Betts, A.V.G. 1993 The Burqu’/Ruwaysid Project:
Preliminary report on the 1991 eld season.
Levant, 25: 1–11.
Betts, A.V.G. (Ed.) 1998a The Harra and the Hamad,
Excavations and survey in Eastern Jordan.
Archaeological Monographs, 9. Shefeld
Academic Press: Shefeld, 252pp.
Betts, A.V.G. 1998b Dhuweila: Stratigraphy and
construction. [In] A.V.G. Betts (Ed.) The
Harra and the Hamad, excavations and
survey in Eastern Jordan, Archaeological
Monographs, 9. Shefeld Academic Press:
Shefeld, 37–58.
Betts, A.V.G. 1998c Dhuweila: Area survey. [In]
A.V.G. Betts (Ed.) The Harra and the Hamad,
excavations and survey in Eastern Jordan.
Archaeological Monographs, 9. Shefeld
Academic Press: Shefeld, 191–205.
Betts, A.V.G. 1998d Dhuweila: Rock carvings. [In]
A.V.G. Betts (Ed.) The Harra and the Hamad,
excavations and survey in Eastern Jordan.
Archaeological Monographs, 9. Shefeld
Academic Press: Shefeld, 143–158.
Betts, A.V.G. & Yagodin, V. 2000 A new look at
desert kites. [In] Stager, L.E., Greene, J.A.
& Coogan, M.D. (Eds.) The Archaeology of
Jordan and Beyond. . Eisenbrauns: Winona
Lake, Indiana, 31–43.
de Vries, B. 2000 Continuity and change in the urban
character of the southern Hauran from the
5
th
to the 9
th
century: The archaeological
evidence at Umm el-Jimal. Mediterranean
Archaeology, 13: 39–45.
Echallier, J. & Braemer, F. 1995 Nature et fonctions
des ‘Desert Kites’: données et hypothèses
nouvelles. Paléoorient, 21: 35–63.
Field, H. 1960 North Arabian Desert Archaeological
Survey, 1925–50. Peabody Museum:
Cambridge, 224+85 Plates.
Gaube, H. 1974 1974 An examination of the ruins of
Qasr Burqu’. Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan, 19: 93-100.
Harding, G.L. 1953 The Cairn of Hani’. Annual of
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 2:
8–56.
Helms, S.W. 1981 Jawa: Lost City of the Black Desert.
Methuen: London, 270pp.
Helms, S.W. & Betts, A.V.G. 1987 The desert kites
of the Badiyat Esh-Sham and North Arabia.
Paléoorient, 13: 41–67.

Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010 215
Holzer, A., Avner, U., Porat, N. & Horwitz, L.K. 2010
Desert kites in the Negev desert and northeast
Sinai: Their function, chronology and ecology.
J.Arid Environ., 74: 806-817.
Kempe, S. & Al-Malabeh, A. 2010 Hunting kites and
associated structures along the eastern rim of
the Jordanian Harrat: A geo-archaeological
Google Earth Images Survey. Zeitschrift für
Orient-Archäologie (in press).
Kempe, S., Al-Malabeh, A., Frehat, M. & Henschel, H.-
V. 2006 State of lava cave research in Jordan.
Proceedings 12
th
International Symposium on
Vulcanospeleology, Tepotzlán, Mexico, 2–7
July, 2006, Association for Mexican Cave
Studies Bulletin, 19 and Socieded Mexicana
de Exploraciones Subterráneas Bolletin, 7:
209–218.
Kempe, S., Al-Malabeh, A. & Henschel, H.-V. 2008
Kempe Cave: An unusual, meandering lava
tunnel cave in NE-Jordan. Proceedings
13
th
International Symposium on
Vulcanospeleology, Jeju Island, Korea, 1–5
Sept. 2008: 38–39.
Kennedy, D. 1993 Umm el-Quttein, Southern Hauran.
[In] de Vries, B. & Bikai, P. (Eds.) Fieldwork
in Jordan. American Journal of Archaeology,
97: 495–497.
Kennedy, D. 2009 Desktop archeology. Saudi Aramco
World, 2–9.
Kennedy, D. & Riley, D. 1990 Rome’s desert frontier
from the air. University of Texas Press: Austin
(Umm El-Quttain: 141–143).
King, G.M.H. 1990 The basalt desert rescue survey
and some preliminary remarks on the Safaitic
inscriptions and rock drawings. Proceedings
of the Seminar of Arabian Studies, 20: 55–78.
Landmann, G., Abu Qudaira, G.M., ´Shawabkeh, K.,
Wrede, V. & Kempe, S. 2002 Geochemistry
of Lisan and Damya formation in Jordan and
implications on palaeoclimate. Quaternary
International, 89/1: 45–57.
Maitland, R.A. 1927 The works of the ‘Old Men’ in
Arabia. Antiquity, 1: 197–203.
Martin, L. 1998 The animal bones. [In] A.V.G. Betts
(Ed.): The Harra and the Hamad, excavations
and survey in Eastern Jordan. Archaeological
Monographs, 9. Shefeld Academic Press:
Shefeld, 159–184.
Neev, D. & Emery, K.O. 1995 The destruction of
Sodom, Gomorrah and Jericho. Oxford
University Press: Oxford 175pp.
Poidebard, A. 1928 Reconnaissance aérienne au Ledja
et au Safa. Syria, 9 : 114–132.
Rollefson, G.O. 1982 Late Acheulean artifacts from
Ain el-Assad (‘Lion’s Spring’) near Azraq,
Eastern Jordan. Bulletin of the American
School of Oriental Research, 240: 1–20.
Rollefson, G.O., Schnurrenberger, D., Quintero, L.A.,
Watson, R. & Low, R. 1997 ‘Ain Soda and
‘Ain Qasiya: New Late Pleistocene and Early
Holocene sites in the Azraq Shishan Area,
Eastern Jordan. [In] Gebel H.G., Kafa, Z.
& Rollefson, G.O. (Eds.) The Prehistory of
Jordan II, Perspectives from 1996. Studies in
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment, ex oriente: Berlin, 45–58.
Royal Jordanian Geographical Center 1997
Topographic Maps 1:50 000 of Jordan (in
Arabic). - (accessible at http://gaialab.asu.
edu/Jordan/).
Simpson, S.J. 1994 Gazelle-hunters and salt-
collectors, a further note on the Solubba.
Bulletin of the American School of Oriental
Research, 293: 79–81.
Tarawneh, K., Ilani, S., Rabba, I., Harlavan, Y., Peltz,
S., Ibrahim, K., Weinberger, R. & Steinitz,
G. 2000 Dating of the Harrat Al-Shaam
Basalts Northeast Jordan (Phase 1). Natural
Resources Authority, Geological Survey,
Israel, 59 pp.
Walther, F.R. 1990 Gazelles and related species. [In]
S.P. Parker (Ed.) Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of
Mammals. McGraw Hill: New York, Vol. 5:
462–484.

216 Proceedings 14th International Symposium on Vulcanospeleology, 2010